Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

I'll try to keep this a short as possible.
To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property".

1. The bible implicitly condones and explicitly mandates slavery.
Some common examples:
- Leviticus 25:44-46 states that non-Hebrew slaves are to be acquired from neighbouring nations. They, along with any children they have while enslaved, are the possessions of their masters permanently, and they are passed on to the masters' children as possessions.
- Exodus 21:2-7 provides instructions on how male and female Hebrew slaves are to be treated.
- Exodus 21:20-21 states that slave owners can beat their slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two.

2. The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.

Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Your #2 is factually incorrect

1 Timothy 1:8-11

Originally Posted by DA BIBLE

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Secondly, your OP does not make any distinction in the kinds of slavery that can exist. Even voluntary slavery. In so dong you ignore or miss the different contexts by which the bible speaks of slavery.

Further, if by slavery you are attacking the very concept of people being owned, then I think you fail to recognize that people are always owned through debt. You would have to say that debt is immoral to hold unflinchingly to your position.

If not, then your objection really isn't about slavery itself, but how slaves are treated. Which is a different debate.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Your #2 is factually incorrect. 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

This passage does not clearly state an opposition to slavery as defined. It states that there are laws which apply to certain types of people, or people engaging in certain activities. It does not clearly state any moral position on any of those activities. Further, there is no consensus regarding the true meaning of the andrapodistes which are mentioned in this verse. Some translations have them as "man-stealers", which most likely refers to the law against kidnapping a person to sell them into slavery. Some interpretations list them as "slave traders". According to Pollux's Onomasticon, andrapodistes means "one who reduces a freeborn person to slavery or who kidnaps someone else's slave". So even to the Greeks the passage isn't specifically opposing slavery.
Even if we were to grant that 1 Tim is talking about slavery and not the theft of slaves, all it says is that there are laws. It doesn't state what those are. For that we must look elsewhere in the bible, where the practice of slavery is mandated (the passages I listed in #1 of the OP).
Even if we were to grant by no small stretch of interpretation that 1 Tim is somehow God's expression of a moral opposition to slavery (owning a person as property), then you still have to explain why slavery is mandated in numerous other passages using language much clearer than that of 1 Tim.

So #2 stands - there is no clear opposition to slavery as defined.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Secondly, your OP does not make any distinction in the kinds of slavery that can exist. Even voluntary slavery. In so dong you ignore or miss the different contexts by which the bible speaks of slavery.

Slavery has been defined here as "owning a person as property", therefore this is not a valid refutation of the OP or the fact that the bible condones and mandates the owning of people as property.

So #1 also stands.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Further, if by slavery you are attacking the very concept of people being owned, then I think you fail to recognize that people are always owned through debt. You would have to say that debt is immoral to hold unflinchingly to your position.

Yes, I do fail to recognize that, since it is not supported. Please support your assertion that people are always owned through debt. It may very well be that debt is immoral if it results in the permanent ownership of people as the property of others.
In any case, this is irrelevant to the OP, which is that the bible condones slavery and fails to stand in opposition to it. I'm not attacking the concept of people being owned.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

If not, then your objection really isn't about slavery itself, but how slaves are treated. Which is a different debate.

This is irrelevant. My objection isn't about slavery or how they are treated, it's about how the bible is in favour of slavery, which is supported by #1 & #2, and therefore cannot be considered as a moral guide.

Bottom line: if the bible is to be seriously considered as a moral guide by anyone, they must first answer the question, "Is it moral to own a person as property?".
If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)? If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral) and why does the bible condone it?

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Your #2 is factually incorrect

1 Timothy 1:8-11

Secondly, your OP does not make any distinction in the kinds of slavery that can exist. Even voluntary slavery. In so dong you ignore or miss the different contexts by which the bible speaks of slavery.

Further, if by slavery you are attacking the very concept of people being owned, then I think you fail to recognize that people are always owned through debt. You would have to say that debt is immoral to hold unflinchingly to your position.

If not, then your objection really isn't about slavery itself, but how slaves are treated. Which is a different debate.

I know of no financial debt (I assume that is what you are referring to) that could make a person someone's "property".
Bankruptcy relieves most debts for instance.
My bank wants a payment every month for my home loan, but if I don't make it, months/yrs later I have to move. My credit rating goes down, but not much else happens. I don't see how I am being owned by this relationship?
(the larger problem is, IMHO, after I pay off the bank, my gov't thinks I need to make an ever larger payment to them for ever because I "own " property, sorry waaay off topic)

Can you actually be a "slave" if you volunteer for the position? (I assume this means you could end the relationship at any time since you entered voluntarily.)

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by futureboy

This passage does not clearly state an opposition to slavery as defined. It states that there are laws which apply to certain types of people, or people engaging in certain activities. It does not clearly state any moral position on any of those activities. Further, there is no consensus regarding the true meaning of the andrapodistes which are mentioned in this verse. Some translations have them as "man-stealers", which most likely refers to the law against kidnapping a person to sell them into slavery. Some interpretations list them as "slave traders". According to Pollux's Onomasticon, andrapodistes means "one who reduces a freeborn person to slavery or who kidnaps someone else's slave". So even to the Greeks the passage isn't specifically opposing slavery.
Even if we were to grant that 1 Tim is talking about slavery and not the theft of slaves, all it says is that there are laws. It doesn't state what those are. For that we must look elsewhere in the bible, where the practice of slavery is mandated (the passages I listed in #1 of the OP).
Even if we were to grant by no small stretch of interpretation that 1 Tim is somehow God's expression of a moral opposition to slavery (owning a person as property), then you still have to explain why slavery is mandated in numerous other passages using language much clearer than that of 1 Tim.

So #2 stands - there is no clear opposition to slavery as defined.

There is at least a kind kind of slavery that is spoken to here, namely people that are stolen away into slavery, which is the common understanding.
That it COULD be understood a different way, doesn't make it any less "clear". Though if you are appealing to your own self as the definer of "clear" then
I am afraid i simply have no reason to accept it.
It is this kind of slavery that I show to support that your #2 is not supported, because as long as it speaks against a kind of slavery, your statement is not true.

As you generalize all slavery together without justification.

Originally Posted by futueboy

Slavery has been defined here as "owning a person as property", therefore this is not a valid refutation of the OP or the fact that the bible condones and mandates the owning of people as property.

So #1 also stands.

well, fair enought that it has been defined, but it dosn't stand as a supprted premise, at you are simply defining ownership as immoral, and question begging.

I point out one example, that of a consentual contract, as an example of "moral" ownership of another.
at least if one holds that consent makes some actions moral, where it lacking.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Yes, I do fail to recognize that, since it is not supported. Please support your assertion that people are always owned through debt. It may very well be that debt is immoral if it results in the permanent ownership of people as the property of others.
In any case, this is irrelevant to the OP, which is that the bible condones slavery and fails to stand in opposition to it. I'm not attacking the concept of people being owned.

The bible teaches as a truth that the borrower is slave to the lender.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

his is irrelevant. My objection isn't about slavery or how they are treated, it's about how the bible is in favour of slavery, which is supported by #1 & #2, and therefore cannot be considered as a moral guide.

Bottom line: if the bible is to be seriously considered as a moral guide by anyone, they must first answer the question, "Is it moral to own a person as property?".
If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)? If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral) and why does the bible condone it?

I readily concide that the bible condones slavery (of some kinds).
Your conclusion doesn't follow from that observation, again you have not established such slavery to be immoral.

-----------------

Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR

I know of no financial debt (I assume that is what you are referring to) that could make a person someone's "property".
Bankruptcy relieves most debts for instance.
My bank wants a payment every month for my home loan, but if I don't make it, months/yrs later I have to move. My credit rating goes down, but not much else happens. I don't see how I am being owned by this relationship?
(the larger problem is, IMHO, after I pay off the bank, my gov't thinks I need to make an ever larger payment to them for ever because I "own " property, sorry waaay off topic)

Can you actually be a "slave" if you volunteer for the position? (I assume this means you could end the relationship at any time since you entered voluntarily.)

Yes bankruptsy is called "theft" and is actually immoral.
as to voluntary slavery, there is nothing about a contract being voluntary that requires the abilty to quit at any time.
As long as you go into the contract of your own will, then the terms are "voluntary" even if you can't opt out In fact, that
is pretty much the point of contracts.

as to a broader understanding of the borrower being slave to the lender, go look at a person who has not opted out of their debt
who sends every cent of profit to some creditor their entire life.
What is the difference from slavery as you understand it? To own a person is to own their labors, our modern social terms are just a lot nicer on the slave.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by futureboy

Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.

Setting aside MT's correct point that your definition of slavery does not match the Bible's definition, from where do you draw this conclusion? You seem to be appealing to some other moral code here, but (assuming it is a subjective code) you haven't clarified where that moral judgement comes from.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Your unstated premise is that all slavery is inherently immoral. Can you make a compelling case for that being absolutely true?

Could you clarify what you mean by "absolutely true"?

================================

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

There is at least a kind kind of slavery that is spoken to here, namely people that are stolen away into slavery, which is the common understanding.

That is one interpretation, however, you have not supported that the passage contains a moral opposition to owning people as property. It appears to state nothing more than that there are laws which apply to various activities and types of people, including something called andrapodistes.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

That it COULD be understood a different way, doesn't make it any less "clear". Though if you are appealing to your own self as the definer of "clear" then I am afraid i simply have no reason to accept it.

"Clear" implies unambiguous. Simply put, the 1 Tim passage is not a clear expression of a moral opposition to owning people as property.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

It is this kind of slavery that I show to support that your #2 is not supported, because as long as it speaks against a kind of slavery, your statement is not true.

Again, speaking of a kind of slavery in an unclear way is not a clear expression of a moral opposition to owning people as property.

Please provide the specific text of the 1 Tim passage which clearly expresses a moral opposition to owning people as property.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

As you generalize all slavery together without justification.

There is no generalization. It's defined simply as owning another person as property. From MW's dictionary for children, it means "the state of being owned by another person". So all it means is "owning another person as property".

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

well, fair enought that it has been defined, but it dosn't stand as a supprted premise, at you are simply defining ownership as immoral, and question begging.

I'm not simply defining ownership as immoral. Our secular moral system has identified that treating people as property is wrong, period. We have laws against it and organizations devoted to eradicating it.
The problem we're discussing here is that the bible condones it. Anything else is a red herring.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I point out one example, that of a consentual contract, as an example of "moral" ownership of another.

Unfortunately, the jury is still out regarding the moral, free will, and legal aspects of "voluntary slavery". Many would say that it is a contradiction, and any contract which relinquishes all consent is not a consensual one, even though it might have been entered into by consent, which itself is highly debatable. Feel free to start a thread on that.
In any case, this is irrelevant to the OP, which is that the bible condones treating people as property, buying and selling them as such, and fails to express any moral opposition to treating people as property.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

The bible teaches as a truth that the borrower is slave to the lender.

This is a claim of something the bible teaches. This is not support that with debt always comes ownership of the debtor.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I readily concide that the bible condones slavery (of some kinds).

You're contradicting yourself now. You first provided 1 Tim 1 as support against OP #2, arguing that the bible does state a moral opposition to owning people as property. Now you're admitting that the bible condones it.

So far both #1 & #2 stand - the bible condones and mandates owning people as property, and it lacks any moral opposition to owning people as property.

Questions:
Is it moral to own a person as property?
If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?

-----------------

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Yes bankruptsy is called "theft" and is actually immoral.

Please provide support for this and explain how you determined it to be immoral.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

as to voluntary slavery, there is nothing about a contract being voluntary that requires the abilty to quit at any time. As long as you go into the contract of your own will, then the terms are "voluntary" even if you can't opt out. In fact, that is pretty much the point of contracts.

Again, the concept of voluntary slave contracts has not been established as sound.
As Murray Rothbard puts it in The Ethics of Liberty: "A man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else’s benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of “voluntary slavery” is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary."

================================

Originally Posted by Squatch347

Setting aside MT's correct point that your definition of slavery does not match the Bible's definition, from where do you draw this conclusion? You seem to be appealing to some other moral code here, but (assuming it is a subjective code) you haven't clarified where that moral judgement comes from.

We're talking about owning people as property - where does the bible define this? Our secular moral system has identified that treating people as property is wrong. We have laws against it and organizations devoted to eradicating it.

Questions:
Is it moral to own a person as property?
If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

I think he means that it's immoral to take slaves no matter what. And I do think that given specific circumstances, slavery is not inherently immoral.

For example (and I'm pretty sure that this is historically accurate), if two tribes/civilizations are at war and the conquering tribe captures a bunch of enemies, making the enemies slaves is the best option overall because all other options are worse either in a moral sense or in the interest of the security of the conquerers.

The other options include killing all of the captives (morally worse), letting them go which frees them to attack again (bad for security), let them join the conquering society as equals (also bad for security). So how do you let them live but keep your society safe? You let them live in your society but give them a lower status that lets you control them so they don't pose a danger (or as much of a danger).

It's still not a good thing but given the circumstances, it could be seen as the best option amongst a series of bad options.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

The lesser of two weevils is still a weevil.
Committing an immoral act to protect yourself from others committing immoral acts against you doesn't make it moral. It's just what's best for you, while completely disregarding what's best for others, which kind of an important moral value.
Also, some captives might prefer to be killed than be enslaved by their conquerors. And depending on how the masters treated their human property, it may very well be better to kill them than to subject them to such treatment for the rest of their lives.

Questions:
Is it moral to own a person as property?
If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Committing an immoral act to protect yourself from others committing immoral acts against you doesn't make it moral.

If one has only immoral options and has to choose one (for choosing to do nothing is still a choice), the most moral option is to pick the option that is the least evil.

Originally Posted by futureboy

It's just what's best for you, while completely disregarding what's best for others, which kind of an important moral value.

Not necessarily. If one is protecting one's family and one's own society by not letting enemies free to potentially attack, it's not just in that one person's interest.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Also, some captives might prefer to be killed than be enslaved by their conquerors. And depending on how the masters treated their human property, it may very well be better to kill them than to subject them to such treatment for the rest of their lives.

Yes. Those are possibilities as well. But that doesn't alter the fact that in some situations, taking slaves is the most moral option available.

Again, you are presenting the position that slavery is always wrong which would mean that there is no situation where taking slaves is morally permissible. I've shown that that is not the case.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by futureboy

We're talking about owning people as property - where does the bible define this?

Well, that does seem to be your position, however, it doesn't appear that you've taken much effort to define the term in the Biblical context. You are appealing to chattel slavery, involuntary, life time bondage. That is a concept not present in the Hebrew Bible. Rather, slavery is defined in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy as being finite in nature, almost always voluntary, and with defined rights to the slave (such as being able to end the servitude). This is far more like our concept of indentured servitude or labor contracts.

I'd be curious if you could show where the Bible says that a master owns the person, rather than owns their labor. Those are two very different concepts.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Our secular moral system has identified that treating people as property is wrong. We have laws against it and organizations devoted to eradicating it.

You've conflated two concepts here. Our legal code does have provisions against slavery. But our legal code is not a moral code, right?

So I'm asking you, what is our "secular moral system?" Where did you find the rule or what source did you have to determine the moral conclusion in your OP?

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Again, you are presenting the position that slavery is always wrong which would mean that there is no situation where taking slaves is morally permissible. I've shown that that is not the case.

You have showed that, based on what little we know of such history, the enslavement of conquered tribes can be rationalized by appealing to the lesser evils principle. This in no way makes it morally permissible to own people as property.
Also, in the situations to which you are referring, the conquering tribe doesn't enslave the conquered tribe with the explicit goal of achieving the lesser evils outcome, and this is not stated anywhere in the bible. They don't do it based on any moral values.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by futureboy

You have showed that, based on what little we know of such history, the enslavement of conquered tribes can be rationalized by appealing to the lesser evils principle. This in no way makes it morally permissible to own people as property.

Because you say so? I've made my argument and your rebuttal has to amount to something more that just saying that I'm wrong.

If you have four bad options but some are worse than others, which option does morality indicate that you should choose? The least bad option of course. If you disagree with that, then explain why my answer is wrong.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by mican333

Because you say so? I've made my argument and your rebuttal has to amount to something more that just saying that I'm wrong. If you have four bad options but some are worse than others, which option does morality indicate that you should choose? The least bad option of course. If you disagree with that, then explain why my answer is wrong.

Your argument is nothing more than post-hoc rationalization of why ancient conquerors enslaved their enemies. It wasn't because they wanted to do the least bad thing, it was because they wanted slaves. You're appealing to a hypothetical which in no way applies to what we've seen in history, let alone now. Please provide an example where a tribe was forced to do the least bad thing as you describe.

Well, that does seem to be your position, however, it doesn't appear that you've taken much effort to define the term in the Biblical context. You are appealing to chattel slavery, involuntary, life time bondage. That is a concept not present in the Hebrew Bible. Rather, slavery is defined in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy as being finite in nature, almost always voluntary, and with defined rights to the slave (such as being able to end the servitude). This is far more like our concept of indentured servitude or labor contracts.

Um, Leviticus 25:44-46 specifically mandates involuntary life-time ownership of people, so I don't know where you get that from. Also, only male Hebrew slaves were to be set free (Exodus 21:2), all others were owned as property for life. There's even a nifty loophole allowing unmarried male Hebrews to be owned as property forever (Exodus 21:4-6). Female Hebrew slaves were owned as property for ever (Exodus 21:7).

Originally Posted by Squatch347

I'd be curious if you could show where the Bible says that a master owns the person, rather than owns their labor. Those are two very different concepts.

Exodus 21:20-21
Deut. 20:14 has the women and children taken as plunder/spoils.
Also, when the master is allowed to beat their slave to death, I guess you'd say they're beating the labour, not the person, right?
Could you show where the bible says that a master owns the person's labour, rather than the person?

Originally Posted by Squatch347

You've conflated two concepts here. Our legal code does have provisions against slavery. But our legal code is not a moral code, right?

Laws are intended to uphold and protect the values of a society. Those values are determined by that society's moral code. From link: every law springs from a system of values and beliefs, every law is an instance of legislating Morality.

Please answer these questions:
Is it moral to own a person as property?
If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by futureboy

Your argument is nothing more than post-hoc rationalization of why ancient conquerors enslaved their enemies. It wasn't because they wanted to do the least bad thing, it was because they wanted slaves. You're appealing to a hypothetical which in no way applies to what we've seen in history, let alone now. Please provide an example where a tribe was forced to do the least bad thing as you describe.

Support or retract that my hypothetical situation does not apply to what we've seen in history.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by mican333

Support or retract that my hypothetical situation does not apply to what we've seen in history.

Since this discussion is about morality, it's completely irrelevant whether all the options actually available to the conquerors were as you describe in your hypothetical. What matters is the conquerors' motivations and whether they believed that was the case and chose the option to enslave because they thought it was the least bad of all the options they believed they had available.
All you're doing is attempting to rationalize what they did while completely ignoring the morality of their motivations, which was not to chose the least bad option, but to enslave their enemy. Please support that there has ever been such a case where conquerors have enslaved their enemy because of a motivation to rationally consider of their options and choose the least bad one which they believed to be enslavement.
It's not so much about what they did, it's why they did it.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Originally Posted by futureboy

Since this discussion is about morality, it's completely irrelevant whether all the options actually available to the conquerors were as you describe in your hypothetical. What matters is the conquerors' motivations and whether they believed that was the case and chose the option to enslave because they thought it was the least bad of all the options they believed they had available.
All you're doing is attempting to rationalize what they did while completely ignoring the morality of their motivations, which was not to chose the least bad option, but to enslave their enemy.

Support or retract that they never were motivated by choosing the least bad option.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Please support that there has ever been such a case where conquerors have enslaved their enemy because of a motivation to rationally consider of their options and choose the least bad one which they believed to be enslavement.

I'm not saying for a fact that they did but that this scenario may have occurred and therefore one cannot say for certainty that slavery was always immoral.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Support or retract that they never were motivated by choosing the least bad option.

Nothing in history indicates that this was the case. Can you provide some historical evidence that a conquering tribe ever enslaved their enemy because of such motivations?

Originally Posted by mican333

I'm not saying for a fact that they did but that this scenario may have occurred and therefore one cannot say for certainty that slavery was always immoral.

Really? How can you be so sure that this scenario could even occur? I mean, if we're talking about a tribe that is motivated to make rational considerations of best/worst options for actions and how those actions will affect others which are subject to them, it doesn't sound like the kind of tribe that would be able to get itself into the type of conundrum you describe. Which is why you need to provide an actual example of it happening.

Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

Support or retract that nothing in history indicates that this was the case.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Really? How can you be so sure that this scenario could even occur?

Because short of someone showing that something like this could not have occurred, logic says that it could have occurred.

Originally Posted by futureboy

I mean, if we're talking about a tribe that is motivated to make rational considerations of best/worst options for actions and how those actions will affect others which are subject to them, it doesn't sound like the kind of tribe that would be able to get itself into the type of conundrum you describe. Which is why you need to provide an actual example of it happening.

I see no basis to accept your claim that this is the kind of conundrum that a society/tribe of the past would not get itself into. I think when a tribe captures enemies, they definitely have the conundrum of what to do with their captives. That just makes sense.